Is it time for a new special genre: "realistic modern movies"?

I suppose there’s really no point in wasting too much breath complaining about how terrible movies have become lately, nor should we bother dwelling on all the reasons why they've tanked—you know, the whole mess of high-budget blockbusters being impossible to turn a profit on, everyone just migrating over to TV series instead, all this new tech, different generations coming up, or just a general disdain for actual scripts and storytelling.

From what I can gather, if you look at any of the top trending lists, it seems like people are still mostly obsessed with supernatural heroes, animations, space-dwelling half-werewolves, and that kind of stuff.

I wonder, though, if it might actually be a good idea if that tiny handful of mainstream films—and I don't mean indie flicks or those niche foreign productions, I mean actual mainstream cinema—where the plot is grounded and takes place in the present day were actually treated differently; maybe distributors and networks could market them as a special genre—something like "modern realism" or a "contemporary realist film"
?
I realize it’s incredibly difficult to make a realistic movie about life right now, because if you tried, ninety minutes would probably end up being eighty minutes of actors just sitting around staring at their smartphones, but I still believe it’s possible to make something that wouldn't bore us folks who aren't exactly interested in werewolves, eight-headed tigers that speak five languages, or secret agents with crazy superpowers; I mean, just some kind of film where actual modern people experience situations that could realistically happen in our lives.

I honestly don't see the point. The content of a movie should define its genre, and I fail to see any sense in introducing some label that doesn't actually describe what’s happening on screen. If we went by that logic, a film about climbing Mount Everest, a serial killer thriller, a drama about searching for a lost family member, and a high-speed car chase would all fall under the exact same category. There are still plenty of mainstream films like the ones you're describing, so I really don't see the need for such a special genre.

Sure, superhero movies have been huge lately; there's a massive audience of comic book fans out there who want to see them. Those films are usually well-made, feature great actors, and are just visually engaging.
Then you've got good historical films, which I personally find to be among the most interesting things to watch.
There's also a lot of fantasy out there because modern technology makes building those worlds look incredibly convincing, and people clearly love watching it.
Dramas have been pretty solid recently too; there are some truly beautiful films coming out.
What seems to have slipped in quality are crime dramas and thrillers, which often drift away from their roots and turn into pure action movies, losing their edge in the process.

Every era has its own way of making movies, and personally, I find myself missing more serious thrillers and gritty crime stories, but it is what it is. I'm happy to sit down for a good movie regardless of the genre, just keep me away from musicals. 😛

Creating a special genre specifically for films set in "modern times" feels pointless to me. Not everyone spends 90% of their life staring at a smartphone—that's mostly a younger demographic, and movies aren't exactly their primary focus anyway. We're still making plenty of excellent films that don't feel disconnected from the world we live in, so I really don't see the necessity for a genre like that.

Paul Anderson7 said:I just don't see the point. The content of a movie defines its genre, so I don't understand the need to introduce some label that wouldn't even accurately describe the film anyway. Because if we went by that logic, a movie about climbing Mount Everest, a thriller about a serial killer, a drama about searching for a lost family member, and an action car chase would all fall under the exact same genre.

Yeah.

Genres are kind of a mess, honestly; a single film can be partially one thing and partially another depending on how you look at it. But everything you just listed would basically fit into the category of a realistic modern film, and I guess there's really no harm in adding that descriptor when a movie is being advertised to viewers.

I mean, it might save those of us who actually enjoy this stuff from sitting through fifteen minutes of some "crime procedural" or "heavy drama" only to realize, out of nowhere, that a horse has started talking or a guy is suddenly flying...

Paul Anderson7 said:Because there are still plenty of movies in the mainstream that fit what you're talking about, and I don't see any necessity for such a special genre.

If I read some "top 10 most watched movies of the year" chart correctly (I can't quite remember where...), all ten of them were about things that aren't real.

Paul Anderson7 said:Sure, superhero movies have been huge lately; there's a massive audience of comic book fans who want to see that on screen.

Those kinds of films are usually very well made, they have great actors, and they're just visually engaging.

And there's a ton of fantasy too, mostly because today's technology makes it possible to create those worlds convincingly, and a lot of people seem to love watching that.

What "people love to watch" is a pretty questionable concept, I think; nobody actually asks people what they'd want to see if they truly had a choice. They just make the movies that are easy to produce and the ones that are guaranteed to turn a profit. That's why we have what we have. It feels like actual quality and decent scripts have migrated over to TV series now, since those can be monetized more easily.

PS: You know how on American TV they put those ratings like "not for ages under 12" or "not for ages under 18" to indicate the content? Well, I don't think it would hurt to add a tag like "realistic, contemporary" next to the titles, just so we know ahead of time that we won't find superheroes, supernatural powers, talking animals, or any of that sort in there.

I didn't bother reading the full text of what you wrote; I just caught the thread title and decided to weigh in.

No.

silentridge3 said:There’s really no point in wasting breath on how bad movies are lately, or whining about why they suck—you know, the whole bit about big budgets being hard to recoup, everyone jumping ship to TV series, fancy tech, new generations, or just people hating on good scripts and all that.

If you want that kind of stuff, just stick to HBO, Netflix, or whatever.

Movie theaters are basically just for kids looking for superheroes or parents dragging their little ones to see animated flicks.

Just look at the billion-dollar hits. It's almost entirely cartoons.

Richard Wilson4 said:If you want stuff like that, you just stick to HBO, Netflix, or whatever else is out there...

I mean, movies in theaters lately seem to be either strictly for the kids with all those superhero flicks or for parents dragging their little ones along for the animated features.

I guess if you look at the massive blockbusters pulling in over a billion dollars, it’s almost always cartoons dominating the charts.

But that’s exactly my point, I suppose.

For those of us who aren't obsessed with superhero sagas or stuck in the whole parenting loop with kids...

...and we actually want to sit down and watch a decent movie, without getting completely worked up by all the weird surrealist nonsense or the total lack of actual scriptwriting...

...it would probably be pretty helpful if those few realistic films left in today's landscape were somehow flagged ahead of time, just so we could actually pick something worth our time.

silentridge3 said:If I read that "Top 10 Most Watched Movies of the Year" list correctly—though I honestly can't remember where I saw it—every single one of them is some kind of fantasy or sci-fi epic.

Most of those viewership numbers usually refer to the box office. I don't get out to the theater very often myself, but when I do, it’s typically with my kids to catch an animated flick. To them, it’s quite the big event, so I don't see much point in denying them that experience. When I actually head out for my own sake, I tend to go for the loud, high-spectacle blockbusters because I want to see those big visual effects on a massive screen. As for a solid drama or a tense thriller, I'd much rather just settle in at home where it's quiet and enjoy it in peace.
That’s exactly why studios pump out those kinds of movies; they know they can pull a crowd into the theater, and honestly, the massive box office numbers speak for themselves. I mean, I sat through one myself and... Paterson I'd rather just stay home than deal with the hassle of going to the theater; honestly, sitting on my own couch sounds much better. The Fast and the Furious

As for the rest of the movies, I think plenty of good ones come out that fit your idea of being "realistic," and even if they aren't exactly smashing box office hits, people still went out of their way to see them. Just thinking back quickly to some from last year:

Moonlight
Manchester by the Sea
Hell or High Water
Elle
Hunt for the Wilderpeople
Nocturnal Animals
Lion
Sully
Daniel Blake

It’s all just the same hyped-up stuff, really. I’ve sat through every single one of them, and if I recall correctly, there isn't even a flying person or an alien or a fantasy creature in sight—just a whole lot of heavy drama. These are the kind of titles that seem to clutter up every "best of the year" list you find online. They might not be the absolute biggest blockbusters out there, but they’re definitely overrated, and honestly, you could find plenty of other movies like them if you actually bothered to look beyond this specific group. Personally, I wish there were more thrillers on the list, but I guess we'll just have to see if a decent one manages to sneak in there somewhere.

What actually counts as "realistic" in movies? Honestly, once you throw a narrative structure and some stylistic choices into the mix, nothing is truly real. Even documentaries aren't pure reality—they have an underlying thesis, right? The story is essentially manufactured in the editing room by emphasizing certain bits of raw footage over others...
Even those nature documentaries aren't real life.

Take that Ivona juka film from last year, "you I to carry"—that was probably the closest thing to what you’re talking about... You mean, occasionally, you stumble upon films like that. They usually just market themselves as a standard drama.

I mean, maybe it counts as a modern movie 🤷

A breakdown of this special genre:

"Think non-genre cinematic narratives set in the modern day—stories focusing on the lives of everyday Americans who don't exactly have flashy jobs, aren't hanging out in exotic locales, and aren't caught up in those tabloid-worthy scandals—and even if they are, those moments and settings are handled without any sensationalist fluff."

I honestly have no idea—it’s never happened to me before where I sit down to watch a gritty, realistic drama only for the animals to start talking ten minutes in. 🤷 🤣

Between all those endless superhero movies and those massive lists of "must-watch" blockbusters, my brain is basically having an existential crisis... I can't even digest it anymore.

It’s gotten to the point where I find myself digging through bargain-bin horror flicks just to feel something... 😁

nimblemarlin6 said:The definition of that genre:

"Non-genre cinematic narratives set in the modern era, focusing on the lives of everyday people who don't hold glamorous jobs, aren't situated in exotic locations, and whose stories don't revolve around sensationalist events that would grab a tabloid's attention—and if they do involve such things or places, they are presented in a completely non-sensational way."

No, I wouldn't say you're exaggerating, though maybe you're leaning into it just a bit.

I mean, a realistic film today can still technically fall into a specific genre, I guess, and you could describe any group of actual people—whether they're totally average or anything else, as long as they're real and don't have superpowers—and they can have any kind of job imaginable, from the exciting ones to the mundane ones, and the plot could play out anywhere on the face of the Earth, involving any events that could actually happen in the real world...

Paul Anderson7 said:Well, most of those massive viewership numbers usually refer to the theater experience. I don't really hit the cinema much myself, and when I do, it’s mostly because I’m taking the kids along, so they get to see some animated movie. It’s an experience for them, so why not give it to them? When I actually go out for my own sake, it’s usually some loud, blockbuster type of thing because, honestly, if I'm paying for a ticket, I want to see the big visual effects on a huge screen. If I want a solid drama or a thriller, I’d much rather just settle in at home where it’s quiet; that’s just my preference, I guess.
That’s kind of why these movies are made—to draw crowds into theaters—and that’s the whole reason the box office numbers look the way they do. I mean, I did catch Paterson in a theater once, but I think I’d much rather sit through The Fast and the Furious
when I'm actually heading out to the movies.

I suppose that’s basically my theory as to why we see fewer and fewer films nowadays with tight scripts and realistic plots.

Most movies only really make their money at the box office, and there’s almost no incentive to go to the theater unless the film features massive technical spectacles or serves as a way to "pacify" a kid for an hour or two. It feels like this closed loop of themes and quality in modern filmmaking.

Paul Anderson7 said:As for the other stuff, I think there are plenty of good films coming out that fit your definition of "realistic," and even if they aren't topping the charts at the local multiplex, people are definitely talking about them. Just a few that come to mind from last year:

Moonlight
Manchester by the Sea
Hell or High Water
Elle
Hunt for the Wilderpeople
Nocturnal Animals
Lion
Sully
Daniel Blake

These were all critically acclaimed; I watched them all, and as far as I can tell, none of them feature flying people or aliens or elves. They're pretty much straight dramas. You'll find these types of films on just about any "best of the year" list. They might not be the biggest hits, but they're talked about, and you certainly can't say titles like these are hard to find, despite the handful I just mentioned. I wish we saw more thrillers in that vein, but hey, a good one pops up every now and then.

I’m not saying there aren't any "realistic" films being made today, I’m just saying there are fewer of them, and there seems to be less investment going into them. Maybe it would be helpful if they were categorized as a special genre, or if the trailers at least gave us a hint about what kind of tone to expect.

Nicole Johnson20 said:I don't know, I guess I've just never experienced watching some gritty, realistic movie only to have the animals start talking to me ten minutes in. 🤷 🤣

But then again, I suppose it’s entirely possible you could sit down for a "historical" epic like *Barbarossa*, where two different women in totally separate circumstances experience these "visions" that somehow turn out to be spot on.

It seems like this modern obsession with escapism is getting so intense that everything has just blurred together, and I mean, it feels like filmmakers today think they absolutely have to sprinkle at least a little bit of *Game of Thrones* magic into every historical drama just to keep people awake...

*- honestly, that movie has such a desperate script and the acting is so lackluster that, in a sane world, the creators should probably be legally barred from ever touching a screenplay again. But in this day and age, I guess nobody really cares about writing or acting anymore; what matters is that the CGI environments look expensive and the shots of catapult stones flying through the air are filmed from some flashy, cinematic angle.

Producer 1: I think we should let the screenwriter go.
Producer 2: But who’s going to finish the script? It’s already pretty thin as it is...
Producer 1: Oh, we don't need that; nobody actually reads scripts anymore. What we really need is more special effects. Let's just take the writer's fee and hand it over to two more computer geeks—we'll stick them in the writer's office and have them beef up certain scenes. For instance, when a guy is walking down a street, let's make it look like an imaginary camera is falling from outer space right down to that specific sidewalk... that's what's trendy now, that's what people want to see... Or if someone hears a sound, maybe a tiny imaginary micro-camera flies straight into their ear...
Producer 2: ...but surely some people still prefer movies with a solid, realistic story...
Producer 1: Forget that; just look at the top ten highest-grossing movies this year, and you won't find a single thing that's actually grounded in reality...

"A realistic modern film"???
Since the dawn of time, human nature hasn't changed—only the scenery does

Paul Rogers94 said:A "realistic modern film"???
I mean, since the dawn of time, human nature hasn't really changed; it’s just the scenery that shifts.

That’s an interesting observation, I suppose.

Does that imply there actually exist places like inter-country realms, sub-spatial rifts, hand-drawn characters, people who fly, talking animals, or half-werewolves living for centuries—and all of that happening right now?

Or are you suggesting that those of us who prefer realistic (actually possible) events are some kind of "relics of the past," while the future belongs solely to audiences who want to watch massive machines causing gargantuan explosions and superheroes spouting ridiculously shallow lines in movies that don't even have a script? Is the future of cinema really that bleak?

John Wick

silentridge3 said:Look, I’m not saying that "grounded, realistic" movies don't exist anymore—I'm saying they're becoming a dying breed. There's less and less money being poured into them every single year. Honestly, it would be a massive improvement if studios just categorized them as a special genre, or at the very least, had the decency to include that information in the trailers so we actually know what we're getting into.

silentridge3 said:I mean, you really could have opted to watch that "historical" flick, Barbarossa—you know, the one where two different women in two totally different situations experience these "visions" that actually turn out to be spot on.

It’s glaringly obvious that today's obsession with the unrealistic has become so overwhelming that everything is getting muddled—it's a mess, really. It seems like the writers behind this historical film think they absolutely have to inject at least a little bit of Game of Thrones into the script just to make it palatable.

I get where you're coming from. For me, that distinction between what’s realistic and what isn't is actually a huge deal—it's fundamental. Take my taste in movies, for instance: I can't stand fantasy to death, yet I absolutely love Sci-Fi. But there's a catch—I only dig the kind of Sci-Fi where my brain can actually wrap itself around the idea that it might realistically happen in our future. Most people seem to find that weird—they constantly lump those two genres together as if they belong to the same audience, but they really don't.

Look, I’ll say this once: I always know exactly what I’m getting into. I can tell ahead of time whether a movie is going to play it straight or dive headfirst into the surreal—I have never, ever been caught off guard by that distinction. (Though, I should probably admit—I watched Storm of the Century a few days ago, and even then, I didn't find it unrealistic. My take was more along the lines of, "Well, sure, something like this could actually happen somewhere"—you know how it is, anything is possible.) 🤣)

Maybe try actually watching a review or a trailer before you just blindly pick whatever you’re going to watch?

I honestly believe we’re seeing a massive surge in these totally unrealistic blockbusters—and frankly, I think you hit the nail on the head regarding what drives their popularity. It feels like our collective expectations as a global audience are becoming increasingly detached from reality... though, I have to admit, I haven't been keeping up with the latest releases lately, so I can't offer much of a critique myself.

Paul Rogers94 said:"A realistic movie today"??? Give me a break.
From Adam to Eve, human nature remains exactly the same—it’s just the scenery that changes.

silentridge3 said:That's an interesting observation.

So, what? Are we actually supposed to believe that things like inter-country realms, sub-space rifts, animated characters, people flying around, talking animals, or half-werewolves living for centuries actually exist somewhere? And all this happening right now?

Or do you honestly think those of us who prefer grounded, realistic stories are just some "relics of the past"—that the future belongs solely to viewers who crave massive machines causing giant explosions and superheroes spouting shallow, ridiculous lines in movies that clearly lack a script? Is the future of cinema really that pathetic?

If I’m following correctly, he was trying to argue that even through these animated figures and superheroes, you can still portray—and draw conclusions about—human nature...

silentridge3 said:Interesting observation.

Does that mean places like interstates, sub-space rifts, hand-drawn characters, flying people, talking animals, or centennial half-werewolves actually exist somewhere? And all this... today?

Or are those of us who crave realism considered "relics of the past"—that the future belongs solely to audiences craving massive machines causing massive explosions and superheroes barking shallow lines in movies without actual scripts? Is the future of cinema really that bleak?

Even within those surreal fantasy creatures, there's usually just some more or less classic drama about unrequited love (say, between two warring species), blah blah—the movie essentially boils down to drama which is always the same old story or just variations on a theme in any film, set against various backdrops. Either that, or it's some looming catastrophe—a comet, a war, various historical or futuristic scenarios—and even those surreal beings are anthropomorphized to such an extreme that they aren't significantly different from "real" modern humans when it comes to their needs. The drama is always existential and always the same... movies that truly deviate from shallow human nature and its accompanying clichés are incredibly rare.